Hi,

I was really stuck on this question because both B and D look like they weaken the argument here. Can anyone explain why D does not weaken the argument?

Any #help would be appreciated!

#HELP

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-3-question-21/

Hi,

Can anyone explain why B here is 100% wrong? I thought that B could weaken the argument because it could state the conclusion of the study is wrong.

Thanks!

Any #help would be appreciated!

Hi,

Asking because there are 2 preptest questions that really confuse me regarding this phrase.

In PT80.S2.Q18, the correct answer is B, and the reason why people say that the answer here is not A is because passage A does not have "particular examples". Passage A discusses hypothetical examples (ie line 11-- "if you analyze a stock, decide it is overvalued..." and line 24--"someone selling a stock because..."). People say that these are not particular examples because they don't refer to a single real-life instance.

However, in PT25.S1.Q3, the correct answer is A, even though one of the two "specific examples" used in the passage is a hypothetical on line 15-- "does a government office, for example, have the right..." (the other "specific example" seems pretty specific-- line 32-- "recently, two employees of an automobile company...")

Unless "specific example" means something different from "particular example", I am really not sure how to resolve the paradox between these 2 questions' answer explanations.

Can anyone please explain this?

Thanks!

Best regards

Gosh, this question is crazy hard...

Can anyone explain how the author is "impugning" the motives of Roehmer in the last sentence? It really doesn't look like the author is questioning/attacking Roehmer's motives at all-- the author is just saying that Roehmer is doing it for her supporters

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-3-question-22/

Gosh, this question was hard.

Can anyone explain why B is not a weakener?

I thought B weakened because, if most people in the painting did resemble real people from history, then if we follow the author's logic, this would mean that any of those people could also be the painter of the painting.

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-2-question-24/

Hi,

So I am just really lost on why the right answer here was B instead of A. Can anyone explain why B is right and A is wrong?

When looking at the question, I focused primarily on the last two sentences of passage A (kinda treated those last two sentences as a LR question).

As a result, A looked like it weakened the argument passage A gives in these last two sentences because it created a reason for the phenomena (of rich people usually paying about the same under progressive tax as they would under flat tax) to be surprising (and thus less "unsurprising").

In addition, I just didn't see how B weakens the idea that this phenomena was "unsurprising", and as a result, I thought B was incorrect.

#HELP

Thanks!

Hi,

The answer here was B, but I chose D. Can anyone help explain to me why B is right and D is wrong? For context:

Here was my reasoning for why I thought D was right:

I thought that passage A would agree-- on line 13, he describes an argument that explains that progressive taxes make rich pay more, he never disputes that fact, and later on in the last paragraph, he even implies that progressive makes rich pay more by talking about how progressive gives rich more incentives to try to cheat the system than flat tax would.

In addition, I thought passage B would disagree-- on line 34, he says that progressive treats all taxpayers equally.

Here was my reasoning for why I thought B was wrong:

I knew for sure that passage B would agree on this issue (line 56). However, I wasn't sure if passage A would agree or disagree since in the last paragraph of passage A, it seems that passage A is saying that MOST rich people in flat tax systems (line 27-- denoted by the word "usually") pay the same as people in progressive tax systems. In addition, the fact that rich people in flat tax systems, without any apparent tax dodging, pay about the same as progressively taxed rich people, shows that they would normally pay less had the progressively taxed rich people had not dodged. Thus, this COULD mean that SOME rich people in progressive tax systems still pay more than rich people in flat tax systems, making passage A a bit ambiguous on this issue.

#Help

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Hi,

Can anyone explain to me their reasoning about how they approached the correct answer here?

I thought that A (the correct answer) was wrong here because we have no idea why Chopin did not believe in the local colorists' idealization on line 38. Thus, it doesn't have to be because Chopin thought that the local colorists were "misguided" (aka wrong).

On the other hand I thought that B was right because it seemed a little more supported: in lines 32-35, it at least explains why Chopin wrote using local colorists' conventions: because she thought that the sentimental novels she read when she was little were a bit too excessive. In addition, my thought was: why write something that is so emotional in such a detached manner (line 37) unless you wanted to deafen the emotional impact?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Best regards

Hi,

So the correct answer here was B. According to JY, B is right because the argument requires an assumption: that in order for direct mail advertising to not be bad for the environment, it needs to replace those who would normally buy something through car rather than getting new people to buy stuff. However, I didn't see this argument flaw because I didn't know how we could assume that direct mail advertising was bad for the environment at all-- after all, the stimulus only tells us why normal shopping is bad, and doesn't tell us that direct-mail advertising creates paper waste or anything like that. Creating paper waste or any negative effect of direct mail advertising in real life seems to be a scientific fact, and I thought that LSAT doesn't want us to create assumptions regarding scientific facts. As a result, the argument actually looked pretty sound to me, and none of the answer choices looked any good to me.

Can anyone explain to me how we are able to assume that direct-mail advertising is worse than not buying at all when the stimulus never seems to tell us that (thus making B correct)?

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-25/

Hi,

The correct answer here was E. I understand why the answer is E (because it shows an alternative explanation for the phenomena described in the stimulus), but I have trouble understanding why D is wrong. After all, if following the protocol actually works in curing infection, then doesn't that weaken the argument by showing how maybe it isn't the protocol that is counterproductive, but possibly something else that is causing the higher infection rates?

#Help

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-22/

I had a 140's diagnostic around January 2020 and was stuck in the 160's since at least March 2020 (with an occasional 170+ score but these were on older pre-J07 tests only-- I only got one 170 score on newer PT)

Like many of you, I was aiming for a 170+ score on the real LSAT, but I was scared as hell because I was stuck in the mid-160's for sooooo long; to be exact, I was stuck at 166 for almost every single preptest in the 70's and 80's

After I took the 2020 August LSAT I continued to study assuming I was going to have to retake for October, and my score actually dropped from 166 to 164 during these past 2 weeks in the last few preptests I took; it made me so sad and scared

Just found out I got a 170 today

So relieved...

P.S. For those who wanted to know how I studied, I have used 7sage (obviously) but never did the CC; I had one hour of tutoring but the tutor just didn't work for me, and I am cash-strapped, so I didn't hire a tutor ever again

In addition-- here are my 2 cents:

Contrary to popular belief, the LSAT is incredibly formulaic; so even if you have no natural LSAT gift (like me), by recognizing what wrong answers look like and what right answers look like, the LSAT becomes almost like math

LEARN from your mistakes; and when I say learn, I don't just mean understand why each answer is right and why each answer is wrong; go one step further by learning WHY you thought an answer was wrong (when it was actually right) and vice versa, and then write down what you learned in a journal and review that journal so that you don't miss questions like that ever again

so many questions on the actual test I think I got right simply because I spent hours/days/WEEKS trying to fully understand a few really hard problems (especially in LR); as a result, on test day, there were so many questions where, while none of the answers looked right, I just picked an answer based on pattern recognition of wrong answer choices that I wrote down in my LSAT journal

it is not about how many PT's you take, but how well you review; the 2 weeks before the LSAT, I spent the entire time just making sure I fully understood PT 88 in its 100% entirety; apparently doing that worked

And lastly, THANK YOU to everyone on this forum who has answered my LSAT questions-- I couldn't have done it without you all

Hi,

I was really stuck between D and E because they both seemed textually correct (E is the correct answer). I thought D was textually correct because the passage really did seem to state that the front-back explanation was consistent with physicists' traditional explanations (since physicists have a "traditional desire" to separate the observer from the phenomenon, and question 25's correct answer C seems to confirm that a "traditional desire" translates into a "tendency" to give explanations like the front-back explanation). Can anyone explain why D is wrong?

thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Hi,

Can anyone explain why the answer here is A and not E?

I have major trouble understanding why A is right when it doesn't seem to explain why the 52% of people who like the candidate continue to like the candidate-- it only talks about the people who don't like the candidate.

Likewise, E at least seems like it could apply to both groups of people since the people who liked the candidate believed the candidate's excuse while the people who didn't like the candidate may not listen to his excuse.

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-26/

Hi,

So the correct answer here was E. I can see why all the wrong answers are wrong, but I had a really hard time accepting that E is right because I saw "doctors" here as referring to ALL doctors (and I don't think we know anything about all doctors from this stimulus). I made this inference because from past experience in other LSAT preptests, in the absence of quantifying language like some/most, I thought that we construe it to refer to ALL (ie PT70.S4.Q18, where E is correct because "managers" refers to ALL managers).

#Help

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-23/

Hi,

Can anyone explain why B is right here?

It seems, when watching JY's explanation, that the reason why B is right is because it provides an explanation for the phenomena-- perhaps the other dinosaur was a baby, and that is why it has T-rex features but small size. However, when I tried to flesh this explanation out, it just didn't seem to work:

if the dinosaur is really old, it strengthens the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

if the dinosaur is a baby, it still seems to strengthen the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

Thus, even though it does provide an explanation for the phenomena seen in the argument, I don't see how the dinosaur being a baby would provide an alternative explanation that could weaken the stimulus' argument when the argument never gave an explanation for the phenomena in the first place.

Hope that makes sense to people reading this

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Hi,

So while I did understand why the wrong answer choices were wrong here, I had trouble understanding why E was right. Can anyone explain their reasoning here?

The reason I had trouble understanding why E was right was because I didn't really know what was the difference between "subjective association" and "possession of concept". I thought that a "subjective association" had to be an association that people made based on their "subjective" (aka personal) opinion, but I didn't see any personal opinion in passage A-- I saw people basing their opinion from the connotations in the languages themselves, not from their unique thoughts/experiences.

In addition, "whereas" in answer choice E indicates contrast between "subjective association" and "possession of concept" yet, from my perspective, it seems like people holding a masculine view of a violin and people holding a rough view of numerical values both seem like "possessions of concepts"-- they are both opinions that people hold.

So how is E right?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-3-passage-4-questions/

Hi,

I think this question is infamously hard... can anyone explain why the answer is D and not C? Both C and D looked incredibly attractive :(

P.S. I have read a lot of explanations for this question, and the top 2 I have seen (but don't feel fully address why D is right and C is wrong) are:

explanation #1-- D is the only correctly qualified answer choice: D is the only one that talks about "viewers" and all the other answer choices talk about other groups of people that may not include the surveyed viewers.

My problem with explanation #1: D talks about "viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate", while the stimulus talks about "viewers surveyed immediately after the debate". These 2 groups may or may not intersect. In addition C talks people who people who watched the televised debate, which also may or may not intersect with the "viewers surveyed immediately after the debate" described in the stimulus. Thus, both C and D may or may not qualified correctly.

explanation #2-- it is totally possible for us to take the information in C and not weaken the stimulus at all. After all, let's say that the people who watched the debate were 5% more likely to vote for Tanner than those who did not watch. It is still possible for the viewers surveyed among the people who watched the debate to be biased for Lopez.

My problem with explanation #2: a flaw also exist with D-- that the viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate are not the same people surveyed after the debate. This could mean that D could be true without weakening the argument too. In this respect, I feel like it is still quite difficult to balance between the 2 answer choices when both seem flawed, and it is hard to tell which one is less flawed.

Thanks!

Best regards

I couldn't have done it without the LSAT prep materials and the 7sage admissions advisor, Elizabeth Cavallari's help; to be able to go to law school debt-free and stay near my family is one of the best gifts in the world

Hi,

Like many others, I was stuck between A and C here. However, while I do understand JY's explanation that a "claim" does not need support while an "argument" does, I thought A was correct here because the second sentence of the stimulus (the sentence that gives an example of how evolution would optimize survival for moose) does seem to serve as "support" for the idea that "evolution does not always optimize survival of an organism", thus making the evolution thing an argument rather than a claim. Can anyone explain why C is right and not A?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note:. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-3-question-21/

Hi,

I have trouble seeing why answer choice E here is wrong-- wouldn't the third sentence here be considered a "generalization", since a generalization is practically the same thing as a general principle, and the idea that "parallel lines often appear to converge" seems to be a general principle-- something that could be applied to multiple instances? In addition, if my aforementioned reasoning is correct, isn't this generalization being "used" to argue against people ridding themselves of tendencies by being used as context for the analogy that the stimulus brings up in the last sentence?

Any #help would be very much appreciated!

Best regards

Hi,

I know for some people this question may have been easy, but I was really stumped between B and E because of the last sentence in the stimulus. I saw the last sentence as saying that the trait that determined why the trees had different lifespans was attributed to the trees rather than the species. As a result, I chose B.

I am kind of starting to see why E is right instead of B, but I am still kinda stuck on what exactly I did wrong in interpreting the stimulus. Can anyone explain to me their reasoning about what the last sentence actually meant and why E is right?

thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-12/

(without deleting all my answers altogether)

Title says it all

Can anyone explain why the correct answer here is C instead of E?

My problem with C was that, in order for C to weaken the stimulus, we'd need to assume that the landlords would take out the energy-conserving equipment once they install the energy meters. If the energy-conserving equipment stayed in once they installed the energy meters, then I don't know how any energy would be conserved because the tenants are living within the same energy standard whether they have the meter or not.

Thus, I thought that a better answer would be E. Granted, E does say "some" making it very logically weak, but at least it reveals something that could weaken the argument in the stimulus (which I don't think any of the other answers even come close to doing). If some people conserved energy for non-financial reasons before landlords installed the energy meters, then this would make it more likely that these people would not care about the new energy meters because they never saved energy for financial reasons in the first place.

Thanks!

Best regards

#Help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-3-question-16/

Hi,

So this question is really hard in my opinion-- I have been looking at this problem for quite a while and I still can't see why A is correct. Can anyone explain why A was correct here?

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Hi,

I chose E, but the answer was A.

Here's supposedly why the answer is A: given that the question is asking for what would "most support the author's claim [on lines 24-27] about the relationship between muralism and the Mexican Revolution", people are treating this question as if the "claim about the relationship" is the statement on 26-27: that the muralists reflected important innovations in the art world (thus leading to the correct answer = answer choice A.

Here's why I chose E: I thought that a relationship had to be a connection between the Mexican Revolution and muralism, so I was focusing on the phrase that muralism was the result of changes that the Mexican Revolution represented (line 24-26). This led me to choose E, since this looked like the only answer choice that could possibly support a claim regarding the relationship between Muralism and Mexican Revolution.

In other words, I didn't agree with A's reasoning because the claim on 26-27 only talks about muralism and doesn't connect it with Mexican Revolution.

Can anybody explain how answer choice A was correct? How were we supposed to know that this claim regarding this relationship was that described on lines 26-27 rather than that described on 24-26?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-3-passage-1-questions/